Memeorandum

Prediction Markets

October 29, 2005

How Covert Was Valerie Plame (III)?

Joe Wilson, aka "Mr. Incredible" will be whining appearing on 60 Minutes about threats to his wife. Uh huh. Maybe, since Joe admitted to doing consulting work for the CIA in his NY Times op-ed (and the Senate revealed that he undertook a 1999 CIA mission), it is he that is imperiled. Or maybe the baddies are excited about the prospect of a twofer.

DiGenova adds that if the trial judge allows the references to
classified information to remain in the indictment, defense lawyers
will probably attack the CIA itself for failing to take the necessary
measures to protect its own agent.

It was the CIA that enlisted the agent's husband, Joseph Wilson, for
the sensitive mission in Africa, and it was the CIA that permitted Mr.
Wilson to publicly disclose his role and publicly criticize the White
House in an op-ed piece in The New York Times, diGenova says. In
effect, the CIA set the stage through sloppy tradecraft for the
disclosure of one of its agents.

Indeed - as the Boston Globe noted, her Brewster-Jennings cover was not designed to withstand any scrutiny at all.

The Washington Post surveys the damage done by the Plame leak, and delivers this reassurance:

There is no indication, according to current and former intelligence
officials, that the most dire of consequences -- the risk of anyone's
life -- resulted from her outing.

WOODWARD: ... They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at
what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was
quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover
abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical
danger to anyone and there was just some embarrassment.

The WaPo also presents a garbled paragraph that is more compelling in the re-edited version picked up by Newsday:

The CIA will not conduct a formal damage assessment until legal proceedings are complete.

Is that how it works when our national security is threatened and lives are on the line - the CIA waits a few years until the trials are over, then assesses the damage?

Come on, we see through this - if the CIA prepared a formal report, it would be subpoenaed as evidence, and the jury would laugh out loud at the "no damage" assessment. So the CIA filed a criminal referral in 2003, got the White House tied up in a two year investigation, and now they are laughing out loud. Well played, especially if you like a spy service that shrugs off executive oversight by inventing crimes and playing dirty tricks.

That said, Fitzgerald saw through their outing ploy, else, where are the indictments for the leaks to Novak and Pincus? However, Fitzgerald did not see through their mysterious "Forgettery Mind Ray" that was trained on Lewis Libby. Where is the justice?

FAIR AND BALANCED: Joe Wilson calmly appraised the hypothetical consequences of his wife's outing for David Corn in the article that ignited this scandal:

Without acknowledging whether she is a
deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, "Naming her this
way would have compromised every operation, every
relationship, every network with which she had been
associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby
and Aldrich Ames."

Mr. WILSON: Well, you know, what was left out of my interview with
Andrea Mitchell was--was my comment that I would not answer any
specific questions about my wife. But hypothetically speaking, as
others have reported, including TODAY, it would be--it would be
damaging not just to her career, since she's been married to me, but
since they mentioned her by her maiden name, to her entire career. So
it would be her entire network that she may have established, any
operations, any programs or projects she was working on.

Interestingly, threats to her physical safety are not mentioned here.

UPDATE: Let's add this, by Mr. Gerecht, a former CIA case officer and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute:

Truth be told, however, the agency
doesn't care much at all about cover. Inside the CIA, serious case
officers have often looked with horror and mirth upon the pathetic
operational camouflage that is usually given to both "inside" officers
(operatives who carry official, usually diplomatic, cover) and
nonofficial-cover officers (the "NOC" cadre), who most often masquerade
as businessmen. Yet Langley tenaciously guards the cover myth--that
camouflage for case officers is of paramount importance to its
operations and the health of its operatives.

Know the truth about cover--that
it is the Achilles' heel of the clandestine service--and you will begin
to appreciate how deeply dysfunctional the operations directorate has
been for years. Only a profoundly unserious Counter-Proliferation
Division would have sent Mr. Wilson on an eight-day walkabout in Niger
to uncover the truth about uranium sales to Saddam Hussein and then
allowed him to give an oral report.

UPDATE 2: From the Nov 15, 2003 WaPo, by Dana Priest:

Lives of lies shadow spies even when they leave CIA

...

Plame's case is
different in that she was burned — not once, but twice. The first time
was by Aldrich Ames, the CIA turncoat who is believed to have given the
Russians the name of every covert operative in the Soviet/East European
Division over 10 years beginning in about 1985.

Not knowing exactly
whom he had outed, the CIA recalled hundreds of operatives, including
Plame, for their safety. Still, her undercover status remained intact
until July, when syndicated columnist Robert Novak identified her by
name as a CIA "operative" in a column about her husband, former
Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, whom the CIA had sent to Niger to check on
allegations that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium oxide there.

It is difficult to
assess the damage to national security from the Plame case without
knowing her specific assignments. Between July and October, when the
story of Plame's outing took on a much higher profile, the CIA was not
officially assessing the damage from Novak's column. Nor was the agency
taking, or recommending that Plame take, any particular security
precautions.

The CIA has not launched a damage assessment, but in matters that involve law enforcement, such as the Justice
Department's investigation into who leaked Plame's name and occupation
to Novak, the CIA typically waits until the case is wrapped up so that
nothing it unearths is subject to discovery in court.

» Wilson, Plame And The CIA from Riehl World View
Captains Quarters has more related coverage on the CIA issue I mentioned here. Also, a solid analysis here.DiGenova adds that if the trial judge allows the references to classified information to remain in the indictment, defense lawyers will probably ... [Read More]

» Time to clean house at the CIA? from Small Town Veteran
Yeah, and I wanted Lyin' Joe Wilson. That's life I guess. Captain Ed has a great post here on why Wilson's the one who should really be hung out to dry over this. Glenn Reynolds:THE BIG LOSER in the [Read More]

Tracked on October 31, 2005 at 02:28 AM

» The Genesis Of 'Outing' from Joust The Facts
Tom Maguire picks up an excellent point regarding Joe Wilson and the 'outing' of his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame, quoting Joseph DiGenova, a formaer US Attorney. That is, if the CIA were interested at all in protecting the 'covert' [Read More]

Tracked on October 31, 2005 at 05:33 PM

Comments

I'd love to see you so cavalier about threats to your own life... and the lives of your family. Keep blogging with your mind tied behind your back, and it may well happen.

And I love how "conservatives" only love the charismatic central authority, and not their whole nation. Remember the supervision beinng given to the CIA was pressure to come up with good arguments for invasion. It worked- Tenet and other hawks used sometimes forged, sometimes blatantly thin evidence to scare us into sacrificing our sons for the geopoltical fantasy.

I'd love to see you so cavalier about threats to your own life... and the lives of your family. Keep blogging with your mind tied behind your back, and it may well happen.

My goodness, Chuck, are you threatening me?

Or are you just guessing that, although you personally would never do anything, someone else might?

I eagerly await your reply.

As to your "content" - do you suppose that Wilson's behavior has the least little bit to do with his current "predicament", if, in fact, he is in one?

And do you believe Wilson when he says he is threatened? Since you may have a special insight into the psychology of people who threaten strangers whose opinions annoy them, you might be able to help us understand this.

Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff is learning one Washington lesson the hard way: Don't do battle with people who run covert operations for a living.

I think this post will be lost on Chuck, but Chuckie it was the CIA, not anybody else, that outed an agent of there own. Period.

But getting to the statement in the AP article this is frightening. The CIA is NOT a Branch of Government, the CIA is an Agency OF THE Government. There role is to spy and collect and decipher intelligence to protect our country. They HAVE NO ROLE in deciding policy. They answer to the President, Democrat or Republican.

It has been increasing distressing to learn over the last few years reading blog commentary that the vast majority of people in this country have not even the first clue about the basic structure of our government. You know, Civics 101 stuff. I sincerely doubt that even a bare majority of people understand the literal truth of your statement that "They HAVE NO ROLE in deciding policy".

Well, what is happening here exactly? You can always count on a partisan rightwing extremist to TELL you what is happening, provided you promise not to look into it and think for yourself at all.

Did the CIA try to stage an internal coup against the Veep's push to lie the American people into war? From what I've read, that's definitely part of the story here. Was that wrong? Or was that an act of patriotism on the part of Americans who have made sacrifices for this country not one person here can measure up to? I'm not convinced that this is what happened, or why it happened, if it did. But I'm surely not going to have rightwing partisan extremists pounding the table with this - or any scenario -as if it were unadulterated fact.

A lot has gone on here. The administration was not honest and trustworthy with the CITIZENS OF THE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY when taking them to WAR. They used and abused the intelligence gathering capabilities of the nation to create their own desired scenario, apparently with the agreement of many of their winger cohorts that they had the elitist right to decide this life and death matter for the citizens....the citizens presumably being too stupid and preoccuppied to be trusted with such decisions themselves.

The CIA staged a pushback, I think that's likely. How far it went we don't know, but we know Big Dick was aware of it and wasn't going to let anyone else exert unlawful power - that was his prerogative.

Another most essential element of this story is clear from Bob Woodward's HUGE LIE told on the Larry King show, with a straight face. The CIA did NOT do an after action report, and Woodward straight up LIED about it on national TV, with a little stop to give some love to Judy Miller. What's that all about? That's the other part of this incredible story - the way the "free" press was totally prostituted in the White House (sometimes quite literaly, with a gay male whore in the press room) . Whenever they had a lie to feed to the public, whenever they wanted to libel an oppponent, they knew exactly which press whores to target. It was part of the machine, the machine of perverting our democracy to carry out their own elitist think tank theories - using the blood and treasure of innocent people around the world, and here at home, to do it.

This is the reason DCIA Goss is doing a "Jason" to the Agency. Those who were not deployed overseas moved up, and you can see the result today. The good news is those returning are as good as this country had in a long time. As for Plame-Wilson and those in the CPD and other divisons who aided and protected them, they'll get what coming to them. No one, and I mean NO ONE gets to screw with the the constitution and get away with it,period.

Did the CIA try to stage an internal coup against the Veep's push to lie the American people into war? From what I've read, that's definitely part of the story here. Was that wrong? Or was that an act of patriotism on the part of Americans who have made sacrifices for this country not one person here can measure up to?

What is this, a Stupidest Lefty competition? Do I need to announce those, or is it always open? Sorry, JayDee, Chuck keeps the lead.

And since you are obviously not taking even a moment to inform yourself, your statement that "not one person here can measure up to" the patriotism and sacrifice ao some CIA agents is belied by the fact that several military vets are regular commenters here.

As to the notion that maybe it was an internal coup, but that's OK - wow.

If you are straining to figure out the CIA ought to conduct itself lawfully, the answer would involve leaks and pleas to the minority party, which is well represented on the Senate and House oversight committees.

Direct leaks to the press and trumped up criminal referrals are not the route we should be encouraging.

Ha , no, it's not a Stupidest Lefty competition. I'm really not that cavalier about the CIA abusing its role.But this WH has created an absolutely Through the Looking Glass reality for all of us. We have a group of think tank egotists who decide to reshape the Mideast, using ideals like "a priori American goodness", and then abuse a cataclysmic national tragedy to pursue their personal geopolitical goals. They stovepipe, cherrypick, forge, manipulate, suppress, propagandize - and god knows what else - legitimate intelligence to phony up a cause for war that their focus groupers have told them can be sold to the American public. A public that is largely moronic when it comes to anything related to our system of government, international affairs or national security. In this context, the CIA reacting against the lawless government doesn't really strike me as a battle of Right vs. Wrong. It's Wrong vs. Wrong. Which side do you pick?

I'm trying a lot harder than the average American to understand this story, but it's extremely complex. The overwhelming sense I have from it is of coldblooded elitists abusing their power in a system where real democracy is no longer operative. On righty sites like this one, there is always the tacit understanding that any abuses of power by this WH were done for our own good, to give us this historic war even though the citizens of America were never told the truth about it. You condone abuses of power all the time. It's a little hard to take your outrage seriously when it's focussed against the CIA, who after all, are the political first cousins of the WH elitists. It isn't their behavior you despise, it's the fact that it's hurting "your guys" and your agenda for this country.

You know, JayDee, if you'd read a few Iraqi blogs, get to understand just how the Iraqis feel about us facilitating the autonomous revolution they are having, and you won't feel quite so angry. It's the Purple Finger Tonic.
==============================================

Since the NBA starts this week, let's use a basketball analogy. Aren't the people complaining about going to war with Iraq after voting for it similar to the Pistons wanting to redo the 2003 draft and take Carmelo Anthony instead of Darko??

He stalks the land,
Dripping blood from the fingers of one hand,
And oil from those of the other.
Bush or Saddam?
I reckon I know
Just which of those you'd druther.
=======================================

They stovepipe, cherrypick, forge, manipulate, suppress, propagandize - and god knows what else - legitimate intelligence to phony up a cause for war that their focus groupers have told them can be sold to the American public.

Prove any part of that, and you might have a point. But you can't. You certainly can't with Wilson's silly story to've checked part of Niger, to "disprove" a part of the case for African uranium, which was itself a minor part of the case for Saddam reconstituting his nuclear program, which was a minor part of the WMD threat, which was only one reason for the war. Finding out he lied about it (and the connection to the WH) only ices the cake.

A conspiracy of peaceniks (and useful idiot fellow travelers in the press) is working hard on a disinformation campaign designed to demoralize our citizenry and convince our enemy that we'll quit. It's working--they keep pouring resources into a conflict that is unwinnable (for them) militarily--unnecessarily inflating casualties on both sides. The very real risk (and sacrifice) to those servicemembers stands in stark contrast to the "threats" to Ms Wilson. It's also worth noting that those actually bearing that risk--and those who have in the past--disproportionately support both the Administration and the war. And claiming some moral high ground based on the need to delegitimize a war after it's well underway is utterly bankrupt.

The fucking pussy leftists didn't want to go to war in 1991. Never forget that.

I always had the idea TM preferred less freedom of expression on here. But thanks for this. It makes the point perfectly that America is filled with assholes who really think international warfare is about the size of their balls.

It's also worth noting that those actually bearing that risk--and those who have in the past--disproportionately support both the Administration and the war.

And how about proving that, Cecil, to see if you actually have a point. I keep hearing how the troops voted overwhelmingly Republican, which always makes me wonder why the armed forces aren't entitled to the same secrecy of vote that the rest of us are. Where is the evidence for this?

I would like to call your attention to the fact that six Iraqi vets are running for Congress (as announced so far) and one for Senate in '06 - Every last one as a Dem. How do you explain that?

America had the right to be asked a straight question: Do you support spending your tax money and the lives of your sons and daughters to attempt to reshape the Middle East through regime change? Now that this question is finally being revealed to the American people, MUCH after the fact, their judgment on the matter is clearer by the day. NO.

And you have the nerve to pretend that this change of opinion is the fault of the ubiquitous "lefties" (in the CIA, media and under all our beds)...rather than an awakened awareness in a previously terrorized, intellectually apathetic public to the lying bill of goods they were sold. You really don't have much respect for your fellow Americans,do you? We can't all be "lefties". Maybe we're just citizens of the same damn country you are.

I got a nice Sunday diversion for you JayDee. You can find it on the web. It's a short story called Chickamauga by Ambrose Bierce, about a little boy living on the periphery of the WONA battlefield.
================================================

In 1994, the CIA found out that Plame had been outed by Aldrich Ames. They hurridly wrapped up her operations, gave her a new identity, and a new cover. She floated around Europe using her new cover, not doing anything particularly useful because it was too dangerous to send her on any real covert missions.

In 1997 she met Joe Wilson at a party, and they immediately launched into an intense affair. Even though he was still married, and hence open to risk of blackmail, Plame told him her identity on the 3rd date.

They returned to the US that summer because the CIA didn't have anything for her to do with her cover blown. Wilson got divorced, they got married.

Plame has been going into Langley every day, trying to find something that she can do. The skills of a good covert officer are kind of unique, but they are only useful if you can go overseas and spy on foreigners. Between Clinton slashing budgets for the spying side of the agency, and Aldrich Ames ending the spying careers of multitudes, the agency is crawling with ex-spooks who can no longer spy but who don't have any skills in the other stuff that the agency does -- analysis, sophisticated computer programming and modelling, data mining, high proficiency in the languages of our enemies, hard sciences. Since these are faithful public servants who have suffered career-disabling "injuries" through no fault of their own, the agency is scrambling to find them something to do. In 1999, Plame gets her husband some sort of assignment going to Africa to check some things out for the agency. (Still classified.)

In 1999 she gets pregnant with twins. She gives birth, and this is yet another blow. Any mother can tell you the enormously rude awakening parenthood is, but twins will stretch any mere mortal to the breaking point.

So now it's Feb, 2002. The twins are around 2 years old. How much time has Mrs. Wilson spent at Langley in the previous two years? Does she work full time? Part time? Couple of hours per month? Given that her degree is in political science, it's not clear that she knows enough science to contribute anything useful to analysis of chemical, biological or nuclear weaponry. What is the function of the Brewster-Jennings cover? Is it to allow the CIA to "pension her off quietly" paying her salary and benefits even though she is not doing any work? If so, is this general CIA policy? Is it legal? How many other gold-brickers is the CIA quietly paying off?

What I've always found very interesting is Joe Wilson's claim that "outing" her destroyed her career. It seems that all of the other analysts with CPD, WINPAC, INR, DIA, etc. are non-covert employees. (FLEITZ! FLEITZ! FLEITZ!) If she was really an analyst, why would it end that career because it became public that she works for the CIA? Is Ms Plame Wilson really "out" even now? Can you really put somebody in jail for lying about something that not only wasn't a crime, but something that didn't actually happen at all?

But this WH has created an absolutely Through the Looking Glass reality for all of us. We have a group of think tank egotists who decide to reshape the Mideast, using ideals like "a priori American goodness", and then abuse a cataclysmic national tragedy to pursue their personal geopolitical goals.

But aren't these goals the goals of the American people by extension? The President was duly relected to pursue virtually the same agenda he began in his first term.

A public that is largely moronic when it comes to anything related to our system of government, international affairs or national security.

Oh, dear. The "moronic public" again. I'd laugh except I used the same kind of nonsense when Clinton was in office - I guess you pays your money and you gets your morons. Hopefully I have grown out of that phase.

The overwhelming sense I have from it is of coldblooded elitists abusing their power in a system where real democracy is no longer operative.

"Real democracy" has never, ever been operative in this country. That's why it's called a "Republic". With respect to cold-blooded elitists, what else could we call Joe Wilson? He was evidently sent on a trip by the CIA for which I submit he was largely unqualified, apparently secured by the intervention of his wife. The fact that he was an administration critic could not have been lost on the CIA.

It is also a bit convenient that while Wilson wasn't required to submit a written report, he was able to loudly and with great fanfare write an op-ed in the nation's largest newspaper as the opinion of an expert on the subject with first-hand knowledge of something that later proved to be false. One cannot fail to note that he is relentlessly playing up a sympathy angle that apparently has very little support in reality.

It's a little hard to take your outrage seriously when it's focussed against the CIA, who after all, are the political first cousins of the WH elitists. It isn't their behavior you despise, it's the fact that it's hurting "your guys" and your agenda for this country.

I am confused - who gets to say what an "abuse of power" is, and how do you reach the conclusion that power was abused in this case? Wilson made public charges as an expert that were at odds with his own report to the CIA. He did so as a political partisan with a straightforward political agenda, and he traded on his credentials as a former U.S. ambassador and his "special" mission for the CIA for the credibility to write a scathing op-ed that impacted (arguably improperly) the debate about the Iraq war and the ensuing presidential election.

Somebody, apparently Libby and Rove, advised the media of suspicious factors impinging upon the selection of Wilson (i.e. his wife's employment). Fitzgerald himself said:

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.

To me, this goes to the heart of abuse of power. If Libby had confederated with others in a conspiracy to "out" Plame, it would have been charged in the indictment. If Libby had himself done so within the confines of the relevant statute and Fitzgerald thought he was able to prove it, it would have been charged.

And how about proving that, Cecil, to see if you actually have a point.

How about this exit poll, which suggests veterans supported GWB by a margin of 57-41% (and factoring in the cited war support percentages, must have disproportionately supported that as well)? It further suggests that if you remove the veterans' vote, Kerry would have won a narrow victory. There have been numerous polls showing the same thing, and several stories from last election about the Dems' attempt to swing the vet vote (e.g., here).

I would like to call your attention to the fact that six Iraqi vets are running for Congress (as announced so far) and one for Senate in '06 - Every last one as a Dem. How do you explain that?

Dunno. Perhaps because the DNC thinks a war record (especially as a latter-day protester) is a significant qualification? If you're claiming they're representative, you're going to have to explain polls like this one:

Sixty-three percent of respondents approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, and 60% remain convinced it is a war worth fighting.

And you have the nerve to pretend that this change of opinion is the fault of the ubiquitous "lefties" . . .

I certainly have the nerve to pretend the coverage is relentlessly negative (because it is), and that some lefties are spreading disinformation (because they are), and that Joe Wilson and his cronies are part of the problem. How much of the opinion change is due to that (or other factors such as the Administration's weak PR, conduct of the war, unrealistic expectations, or simply fatigue) is hard to quantify.

Hey, folks, the mission is accomplished. We could come home tomorrow, and the Iraqis would do alright. It would be easier for them if we stay awhile, though, and after all they've been through, I don't begrudge them a little more of our time and resources. They'll be a Gibralter for some time to come.
=================================================

If Libby had confederated with others in a conspiracy to "out" Plame, it would have been charged in the indictment.

Untrue. If Fitzgerald had the proof that Libby conspired with others, it would have been charged in the indictment. The success of the WH -so far- in concealing its actions from the eyes of the law, as they have from the public, does not equate to innocence.

I am very impressed at this point with Fitzgerald's ability to pierce the armor of secrecy in this WH.It was quite an unusual sight to see a public figure on TV actually answering questions honestly, in plain language, with an intent to inform rather than misdirect. We are so unacquainted with hearing simple, common truth spoken on our televisions these days, it really felt strange. The indictment feels like the first chink in a previously unbreachable dam, so is remarkable in and of itself. We'll see where it takes us.

As for the intelligence level of the American people, I'm not talking strictly politics. Only 17% of Americans, according to a recent poll, believe that evolution is scientifically accurate and apparently more people believe in ghosts than think George Bush is doing a good job as President. For all the a priori goodness that justified our preemptive invasion of a nation that posed no threat to us, we are an embarassingly ignorant group of people.

I'm familiar with your particular brand of conservative theory - that citizens of a republic must remain the abject victims & puppets of elitists who will make all their decisions for them. It jibes well with an uneducated populace, and gives the government a vested interest in keeping them so.

I suppose Syl's last comment was some clever insinuation that "lefties" are tin foil hat conspiracy theorists - rather incredible given the clashing of tin foil that's gone on around here the past few weeks. I have a novel thought for all you good Repubs to consider on a Sunday - the dreaded "lefties" are your fellow Americans, equal citizens, with a sincere and honestly derived point of view that happens to conflict with your own. It is rather unseemly to watch you magnificent patriots continuously deride your fellow Americans for practicing just those ideals you base your entire a priori concepts of American goodness on.

"The success of the WH -so far- in concealing its actions from the eyes of the law, as they have from the public, does not equate to innocence."

All their actions belong in Area 51.

Actually, they concealed them so well, they don't even exist.

You just don't get it, JayDee. You have a disagreement with Bush's policy. Why can't you accept that it's just a disagreement? Is it actually necessary for you to believe that people who don't agree with you have been tricked?

I have a novel thought for all you good Repubs to consider on a Sunday - the dreaded "lefties" are your fellow Americans, equal citizens, with a sincere and honestly derived point of view that happens to conflict with your own.

Very nice. May we also apply that consideration to the "rightwing partisan extremists," "coldblooded elitists," "think tank egotists" and the "assholes who really think international warfare is about the size of their balls"?

BTW, on the latter point, I suspect those of us with some actual experience in the area take it very seriously, and have devoted considerable thought to the matter. (One tends to pay more attention when one's balls are in actual jeopardy.) The fact that there are diverse viewpoints just illustrates the fact it's not a simple subject. Hence simplistic arguments like the above tend to be unpersuasive.

As the resident TV watcher, think I need some blood pressure meds about now. PBS did the darnest hacket job with Isikoff and Cooper. Watching Russert do another full fledged. Russert..NBC/MSNBC...Isikoff..Newsweek posted on MSNBC...Andrea Mitchell..NBC/MSNBC. How in the hell is it possible that the witnesses can be allowed to wage this war 24/7 in the open? You should have heard Cooper.....he and Isikoff were not even on Libby.....they were going after Rove full force.

"The fact is, once your husband writes an op-ed piece and goes political, you have no immunity, and that's the way Washington works," said Robert Baer, who served in the CIA's clandestine service. - WP article

Bloggers often get threats... especially those whose vitrioloic tone outpaces their reasoning. All I was saying is that when one actually receives a death threat, it tends to change their armchair perspective. That's all.

It's cool to question the CIA, and their compentence. I don't think that's being done reflexively here... It's just the last thing Hannity said to prtect the interests of Dear Leader, so people run with it.

On the content, you can't have it both ways. Either the CIA underestimated the threat, and the WHIG shook them around to ensure that Dear Leader could justify his forward leaning stratgy to save our lives, OR the CIA tricked Dear Leader by failing to delelop accurate intelligence. The latter is simply unsustainable: you are among the 1/3 of Americans who think Iraq is a shining success.

The former is the real story... but it turned out that Dear Leader, Chalabi, Curveball, the MSM, and the right wing chorus were even more wrong than the dreaded CIA. The twists and turns it takes to retroactively justify your actions is the real pychological mystery. Not Joe Wilson. He didn't support the war. Ruining his wife's career pissed him off something fierce. It is very cute to see a liar that the right doesn't just automatically salute. McLellan, Cheney, Libby, Rove... all lied on the public record. No problem.

I understand that anything from the left seems luny when you listen to Rush all day and Fox news all night. But ya'll are in the minority... and getting more so all the time. No amount of Ann Coulter books will be able to write history your way. The Bush team wanted a war... they justified it the best way they could- without caring too much about the truth... they used forged documents, false statements, exagerations, and misleading analysis. Anyone familiar with the INR and OSP knows how this happened. Having control of 3 branches of government has certainly helped keep the truth at bay for awhile... but the truth is pernicious.

Chuck, here's a hint, if you want your arguments to be taken seriously, don't use childish nicknames for people you don't like (I know that you're incapable of differentiating between Kim Jong Il and Pres. Bush; but I'll leave that education to a high school teacher).

If you REALLY think that conservatives are a shrinking minority, you better check those polls again.

The other very scary thing in all these posts is the opinion that one's national identity can only be articulated as an extension of the will and motivation of the central Leader. This never works well. Not every government agency resisting the Will of the Sovereign is treasonous. I thought the idea was to conerve the values of like the 1950'a not the 1650's.

If the INR was using the OSP and the WHIG to spread false "intelligence" that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program (which is objectively true), and my CIA did not do what it could to brig the truth out it would be wrong. The more right wing commments sections I read, the more clearly In understand the roots of fascism. Uncritically, and aggressively, interpolating the identity of an infallible central authority is the heart of it; no matter what Jonah Goldberg says.

Bloggers often get threats... especially those whose vitrioloic tone outpaces their reasoning. All I was saying is that when one actually receives a death threat, it tends to change their armchair perspective. That's all.

Not at this site, and not from me, but thanks for the typically insightful "everyone does it" defense.

Of course, it is up to your typical level of illogic - are you saying some fool on the left will mistake me for a CIA agent because I think Wilson is a liar? We did, after all, get started on the subject of the threats to an outed CIA agent.

Or are you simply warning me that there are violent fools on the left who will threaten the wives and children of folks who think Joe Wilson is a liar? Well, if controversial public figures attract threats, it is probably Joe, and not Valerie, that is being threatened.

Evidently, I have a higher opinion of the people on your side of the debate, your example notwithstanding.

And to round this out - the other thing you meant to say is "good-bye" - I don't think I need to maintain any pretense of civility with a fool who thinks its A-OK to casually threaten my wife and kids.

Good-bye, Chuck - go whine at the DKos about how your right to dissent was stifled just because you threatened some intolerant, unsympathetic rightie's children.

JFH:
Your point about the nicknames is certainly true. I should write more dispassionately. I really am shocked by the unthinking adoration Bush receives, and the way people use that adoration as a trump card against counter-arguments. I should find a less chldish way of making that argument, to be sure.

The polls on whether we should have invaded Iraq, um no... I don't need to check them. I don't know about the Fox news poll... but there's not a single poll in the last 9 months that has even stable support for the invasion or the conduct of the occupation.
Didn't Rush tell you?

I was NOT threatening you. Malkin, Sullivan, dKos, all the blogs I read from time to time complain about threats. Read into it whatever helps your ideology withstand inconvenient facts, the point I was making was the one I made. It's easy for you to laugh at the threats to his family, when you're so safe and far away. From assetively misreading my post, you have apparently gotten the point, however accidentally.

Chuck:
Triumph of hope over experience here but may I ask a question?:

You're seriously arguing that Colin Powell and his staff, Rumsfeld and his staff, Rice and her staff, Bush and Cheney and their staff, Tenet and his staff, the staff of the entire National Security apparatus et cetera all conspired and agreed to falsify intelligence, to cook the books, to fix the data, in order to go to to war to reward Halliburton or the neocons or some other powerful force?

There was a sort of Wannsee Conference by the neocons?

Literally hundreds and hundreds of individuals all lied to send the nation to war.

Not one single voice in the above collection stood up and said, "No, I will not send our men and women to die for a war built upon falsehoods"?

It shows either a paucity of imagination or a fascist turn of mind to assume that those who disagree with you are the unthinking pawns of some central authority.
=================================================

Blame Patterico for sending me over here........I had posted these questions there and he kindly said that if anyone would know , this blog would.

Who told Novak?

If Fitzgerald knows, which he should know as Novak cooperated, why isn’t that person charged with outing a “covert” agent? If indeed her employment was privledged.

Has any of this been clearly established?

If it were legal to give her name then why would Libby lie? He's too smart not to have had this information or to know he could get a pass on the "not willingly or knowingly" tell her name.

Is it a possibility that Judith Miller told Novak because she did’nt want to be in trouble with the NY Times yet wanted the truth out there?

If that were so then she would’nt be in trouble for telling Novak…. I guess its legal for one reporter to tell another this "secret info" but I’m not sure it fits the timeline.

Yet, everyone was wondering why she would have to go to jail for not revealing a source for a story she never wrote.
Why would’nt she have written a story? Again, the NYT’s maybe would’nt publish it so she slipped it to Novak?

Could it be that since Novak said it was Miller that told him..Fitzgerald simply wanted to know if that were true and if so, who told Miller?

I know that Novak credited a Senior Official or something to that effect–can’t recall right now the exact wording.but since Miller told Novak the source, he just skipped the part about it being 2nd hand?

At trial, can all the lies Wilson told and the CIA's misconduct be addressed as background noise?

He's decided ahead of time that Wilson's a "liar" - charge that holds no water, since the only "proofs" offered are discredited GOP propaganda points.

TM and the other anti-Wilsonites keep trotting out the addendum to the SIC report - an addendum written entirely by Bush partisans, including Senator Pat Roberts. Roberts is the same fellow who permanently tabled the other half of the SIC inquiry into Iraq war intel: the part of the investigation that would have looked at whether and how the Bush Admin misused intel. Roberts worked directly with Cheney to limit the scope of the Committee inquiry, a clear conflict of interest, violation of separation of powers, and obvious pre-emptive cover-up.

The anti-Wilsonites only "proof" that Wilson lied is a discredited addendum to an intelligence report.

The addendum becomes more discredited as more information about Bush Administration lies and chicanery comes out. Relying on that discredited addendum doesn't make the anti-Wilsonites look like doughty truth-seekers; it makes them look like morons; like marks for any conman who knows how to push their buttons.

Back during Watergate, Nixon was quoted as referring to the five guys who broke into the Democratic Party Offices as "assh*les."

A reporter asked the five burglars how they felt about that.

They said it was an honor to be called an assh*le by a great man like Nixon.

There's a phrase for people who are such toadies to power that they'll do anything in its service, put up with anything in order to bask in its reflected glory, and still keep praising the ones who are using them.

last post, I promise... I will respecct your wishes, even though your security protocl is lousy... but SMG makes a reasonable point. I'd like to respond.
I don't even think they "lied"... they may well have expected to find a nuclear program.

And, no, it wasn't a giant conspiracy.
It was a very smart bureaucratic move. The Office of Speacial plans and the White House Iraq Group... which is like 20 hawks... tried to go out and find good arguments for invasion from existing intelligence work, and to bring new assets to the intel community (curveball and the like).

They just weren't very careful about the truth. I think they likely knew many of their claims were controversial, and thinly supported... but the goal was the important thing. As Chalabi said of the false INR intel: "what does it matter, now we are here."
This is no more of a conspiracy theory than the hypothesis of a bureaucratic pushback from the CIA. It's infighting and structural jockeying. And they won.

(a) reread the NIE to see what the consensus view of all the relevant agencies was on Saddam's nuclear capacity and intentions and (b) reread the SOTU to see what a tiny part of the justification for the was was based on that.

OT: The Real Crime, David Ignatius"The vice president's office focused on a meeting that had allegedly taken place in Prague in April 2001 between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and Iraqi intelligence. CIA analysts would literally measure ears and noses in surveillance photos of the alleged meeting to show that the report was phony, but Cheney's aides would tell them to go back again, and yet again."

I hadn't realized there were surveillance photos of Atta in Prague. I seemed to recall the rumours of Atta in Prague surfaced quickly after 09/11. When did the CIA get possession of the photos (forged or not)?

Clarice and her adoration of the SSCI is hilarious. As if the SSCI, like every committee in our one party system, was not controlled by partisan pubbies, as if there were even such a thing as a meaningful nonpartisan report coming out of this Congress.

Here's the salient point you "patriots" need to somehow absorb. Why did Libby LIE to a grand jury sent to investigate what you all contend was not a crime?

Let's listen to a non partisan American who really does respect the laws of his country above the carcasses of his party's powergrubbing elite:

I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge. This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime. - Patrick Fitzgerald

It''s not about Joe Wilson. If Libby wasn't protecting someone or some illegal activity, WHY DID HE LIE?

Untrue. If Fitzgerald had the proof that Libby conspired with others, it would have been charged in the indictment.

Not necessarily. A conspiracy to do something that is not illegal isn't a criminal conspiracy. It is more likely that Fitzgerald had no crime to allege.

The success of the WH -so far- in concealing its actions from the eyes of the law, as they have from the public, does not equate to innocence.

As far as the law is concerned, it absolutely does. This statement is simply spin. If you have crimes to allege with the requisite proof, I suggest you call the Department of Justice and refer it. Good luck to you.

I'm familiar with your particular brand of conservative theory - that citizens of a republic must remain the abject victims & puppets of elitists who will make all their decisions for them. It jibes well with an uneducated populace, and gives the government a vested interest in keeping them so.

Well, there you go. You have been able to divine my "brand of conservative theory" and yet utterly failed to articulate it in any respect. It's too bad someone so intuitive would resort to ad hominem arguments and conspiracy theories. But then again, it was you who suggested that our populace was ignorant - perhaps you are right after all.

TM and the other anti-Wilsonites keep trotting out the addendum to the SIC report - an addendum written entirely by Bush partisans, including Senator Pat Roberts.

As far as I know, you're the only one citing the addendum. The main report, on page 45, says:

Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have “misspoken”to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were “forged.” He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. [emphasis added]

M and the other anti-Wilsonites keep trotting out the addendum to the SIC report - an addendum written entirely by Bush partisans, including Senator Pat Roberts.

Which is kinds funny Cecil, because if the SIC report affirmed Joe Wilson account of events and assertions, the left would utilize this same argument--written entirely of Bush partisans---as proof of it's importance!

naomi edwardjayepstein has a hard to navigate website on which he has the most detailed explication of the Atta in Prague story, and I think he's right, there is no solid evidence disproving the claim of Czech intelligence. (Unless you think that no one else could have used his cell phone in Fla while he was abroad.)

If Fitzgerald knows, which he should know as Novak cooperated, why isn’t that person charged with outing a “covert” agent? If indeed her employment was privledged.

Well, we don't know everything Fitzgerald knows. Perhaps the facts simply didn't fit the statute. Fitzgerald did not even acknowledge she was "covert", what he said was that the fact of her employment with the CIA was classified. We don't know if she was actually covert, either from the Agency or from the special prosecutor. It could be that she was not, and the Intelligence Protection Act (or whatever its called) simply doesn't apply to her.

If it were legal to give her name then why would Libby lie? He's too smart not to have had this information or to know he could get a pass on the "not willingly or knowingly" tell her name.

Maybe he didn't lie. That has been alleged, but not proven. The fact that an indictment looks good prima facia does not mean that it can be accepted uncritically. Of course, that is why we have a trial.

My experience with indictments is that they attempt to tell a story. Some of the facts that support that story are solid - documentary or supported by multiple credible corroborating witnesses. In other cases, there are a number of apparently incriminating facts that may turn out to be unrelated or simply incomplete. It is a fair bet that parts of this indictment are wrong - I have never seen one this complex that got all the facts substantially right. Depending upon where those errors are, the entire story could simply collapse under close scrutiny.

My experience is also that investigators, as a rule, tend to ignore exculpatory evidence unless it is very strong. This is partially because they are not really charged with being fair - that is the province of the trial process. Investigators tend to form an opinion early in the investigation, and sometimes pursue that opinion so doggedly that the result can be inevitable. I can't say if that is the case here, but most of the "grunt work" in this investigation was done by the FBI, who are a very suspicious lot. That is one of the reasons why I find Tom's suggestion that Karl Rove got caught up in Libby's tailwind so compelling - I have seen it happen before.

How covert was Valerie Plame? That is something that Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby likely determined when they were briefed about her identity by CIA officials ... Libby must not have thought that identifying Plame as a CIA employee would pose a security risk for her, the CIA or the country's interests ... otherwise he would not have done it ... So, if no harm was done, WHY DID HE HAVE TO LIE ABOUT IT?

I had posted these questions there and he kindly said that if anyone would know , this blog would.

Alexandra, I think the reason you're not getting an answer to your questions is because we don't know. Novak's source is still the big mystery, as is Fitz's failure to charge the "outing" offense (which, it seems to me, he would have to prove as part of his case to secure the perjury conviction). I suspect either there was too much "telephone" going on and it was impossible to determine the source, or a few grand jurists wouldn't buy off on some part of the case (e.g., intent, or her covertness). That's pure speculation, but as you imply with your questions, it still doesn't add up.

Novak's source is still the big mystery, as is Fitz's failure to charge the "outing" offense (which, it seems to me, he would have to prove as part of his case to secure the perjury conviction).

With all due respect, Cecil, this isn't true. Perjury involves making false statements under oath to the grand jury that are materially relevant to the investigation. It's still possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a witness perjured him- or herself even if it's not possible to do the same for the underlying crime.

For example, suppose Fitzgerald was investigating the (supposed) outing of "The Geek, Esquire" as a covert CIA agent. I testify under oath that I overheard Scooter Libby and our host Tom Maguire plotting to out "The Geek" as a clandestine CIA agent, but several witnesses later testify that I was, in fact, sipping sweet mint teas with Joseph Wilson in Niger when I was supposed to be eavesdropping on Libby and Maguire. Fitzgerald can (and should) still indict me for perjury, even if it turns out that The Geek is just a third rate hack lawyer with delusions of granduer and no affiliation with the CIA. My statements were still materially relevant to the investigation itself, even if that investigation concluded that no crime was committed in outing The Geek as a CIA agent.

Likewise, whether or not outing Ms. Plame as a CIA agent to reporters was a crime or not doesns't change whether Mr. Libby made false statements to the FBI and to the grand jury while under oath that were materially relevant to the investigation. The prosecution can still prove the latter without having to prove the former.

DrJohn:
"WHO GAVE JOE WILSON PERMISSION TO GO PUBLIC WITH HIS REPORT?"

Apparently (reportedly), Wilson never signed a confidentiality agreement with the CIA before he went on the mission.

So he was not forbidden to discuss his findings.

It's interesting as well that Nicholas Kristoff recently wrote a column arguing that the SP should not indict anyone unless he could prove an underlying crime took place. In other words, Kristoff argued that false statements or perjury were not sufficient charges to be handed down unless a more serious crime had occurred.

Interesting sorta' backtracking by Kristoff in relation to the accusations he passed on in earlier columns.

X is the answer to the question.Y may be implausible but proving perjury on that basis is a very long shot.

Today Andy McCarthy:

When it finally gets to explaining the perrjury charge, it contends (in paragraph 3 on page 22) that Libby’s statements are perjurious only in that they falsely report the substance of Libby’s single conversation with one particular reporter, namely Matt Cooper. The count does not allege that Libby was tyring to mislead the grand jury about his general state of information.

This suggests to me that Fitz agree's with my claim. Could his reasoning be as follows:

Y is so implausible that it discredits Libby's claim of X therefore charge Libby for lying about X instead of Y.

I must say, this is a great change of heart. They've certainly come a long way from the days when they happily facilitated killing CIA agents by way of Phillip Agee and Senator "Leakin'" Leahy to being shocked! shocked! that anyone would invalidate Valerie Plame's Who's Who listing...

It's interesting as well that Nicholas Kristoff recently wrote a column arguing that the SP should not indict anyone unless he could prove an underlying crime took place.

Well of course Kristof would argue this, as it happens Valerie outed herself to him. Now Kristof has the uncomfortable predicament of admitting this or continuing to deny that Wilson misled him. Ultimately, Wilson has undermined two careers...Pincus and Kristof.
The best case scenario would be indictments for the underling crime "outing" or no indictments at all.

Valerie Plame has no business interjecting anything into this investigation simply because Wilson was her husband. It is a conflict of interest. Wilson, knowing Plame had recommended him for the trip, should never have written the ediorial. Never mind that it was a total lie, but in doing so he invited inspection of the whole affair, and that is what led to her being identified. Fascinatingly, Fitzgerald noted that her employment was "not common knowledge,", not a secret.

If we're having a Stupidest Lefty Contest, we shouldn't forget old friends for new. I submit, from today's Semi-Daily Journal, everyone's favorite Berkeley economist putting his cart before his horse:

'Hence the Wall Street Journal's declaration that if the obstruction of justice is successful--if it keeps the prosecutor from being able to prove the underlying offense beyond a reasonable doubt--it should not be prosecuted.'

Btw, if Libby lied BECAUSE Fitzgerald made him think that he was going to prosecute him for leaking classified information if he admitted to discussing Ms Wilson with reporters, that strikes me as a perjury trap.

Perjury involves making false statements under oath to the grand jury that are materially relevant to the investigation. It's still possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a witness perjured him- or herself even if it's not possible to do the same for the underlying crime.

I'm aware of that. But in this particular case, the prosecutor is asserting that the truth of the matter Libby lied about is that Libby brought the subject up, not Russert:

Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it;

And that Libby was aware of her CIA employment (through classified channels):

At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA . . .

So again, in this particular case, he first has to prove Libby leaked (which is essentially the same as the leaking charge--assuming one goes with the easier "classified information" standard), and then prove Libby lied about it. That begs the question of why he didn't charge Libby with leaking.

"The best case scenario would be indictments for the underling crime "outing" or no indictments at all."

Criminal defense attorneys all over America will love this reasoning. All anyone'd have to do to commit arson, embezzlement, murder is lie to the police, the GJ and the prosecutor. Because, by golly, if the police and GJ and prosecutor can't prove the underlying crime, they shouldn't bring any charges at all.

If Libby only falsely reported his conversation with Cooper(something is disputing) and he was not charged with anything illegal about the conversation and further he is not charged with lying to the gj about the conversation, how in the world do you get to the Materiality predicate for a perjury count?

I don't think this will make it to trial. I'll bet Sulzberger is frightened to death of having the Times' ass spread out before the media, and Cooper, Time, and Miller won't be looking forward to it either. Also, the CIA would get dragged into thi to explain how it is they allowed Plame to have her husband take this trip and then how it is they allowed Wilson to write an editorial which was completely at odds with what they concluded.

ts-- By failing to follow the WaPo's lead when last week it tardily corrected Pincus' original article , I think it fair to say that the NYT continues to maintain that Kristof's original article is valid. And I'm going to keep saying that until they correct or retract it.

The administration officials subpoenaed by Fitzgerald realized that no crime was commited in the course of their discussions with the press about the Plame affair. They also knew that without anyone being indicted that the facts discovered during the investigation and grand jury testimony would never see the light of day.

Many informed bloggers who have law backgrounds say the a report can never be issued by Fitzgerald.

Therefore the press would continue to pummel the administration and there would be no positive proof to dispute them.

The only place the facts behind the investigation can come to light is an open trial of someone...anyone. Who is the least hurt by resigning and awaiting a trial? Libby seems as good a candidate as any.

Am I dreaming or is a Libby trial going to out-do the OJ trial of the century?

I'm with you. And unless Russert has a tape, I don't see how you're ever going to convince 12 people on count 4 either. (I also think a straight leaking charge would have been easier to prove, and more palatable to a jury.)